Looking at the Second Life 2017 year-end Grid Survey report

On December 31st, 2017, Tyche Shepherd issued her year-end summary on the general size and state of the Second Life main grid.

In terms of a percentage loss, 2017 saw private region losses return to the 2014/2015 levels, with a 4% decrease through the year, somewhat lower than seen in 2016. In all, 677 private regions of all classes were removed from the grid in 2017, compared to 992 in 2016. At the same time, the number of Mainland / Linden held regions increased very slightly from 6,744 to 6,806 (up by 62), leaving an overall net loss of 605 regions across the grid as a whole.

Taking the year-on-year figures from 2010 onwards (that being the last year the grid exhibited a growth in the number of regions), we get the following breakdown for private regions:

2010

2011

2012

2013

24,483

23,857

20,994

19,273

Increase

%age

Loss

%age

Loss

%age

Loss

%age

810

3%

626

2.56%

2863

12%

1719

8.2%

2014

2015

2016

2017

18,600

17,775

16,783

16,106

Loss

%age

Loss

%age

Loss

%age

Loss

%age

673

3.5%

825

4.4%

992

5.6%

677

4.0%

Working on the basis of Tyche’s Full Private Region surveys I have to hand, a breakdown of approximate recent monthly revenues from private regions over the most recent four-year period might be given as:

November 2013: US $3,857,000 (+/- US $52,000)

March 2016: US $3,385,000 ( +/- US $43,000)

December 2016: US $3,162,000 (+/- US $39,000)

December 2017: US$ 2,970,000 (+/- US $36,500)

This represents around a 23% drop in monthly tier revenues over a four-year period. Of course, there are other revenue routes associated with Second Life – notably Premium memberships (which the Lab has in the past indicated account for around 20% of revenues). More directly, the end of 2016 / start of 2017 saw the Lab generate an estimated US $80,000, which doubtless help offset the decline in tier revenues to some extent. So, taking these factors into consideration, I would suggest that overall, the Lab might still be generating around US $48-49 million in revenue, or roughly the same as my estimate from my 2016 end-of-year article.

In 2016 there was some speculation that any opening of Sansar might have an impact on SL’s landmass. In my 2016 piece, I expressed the opinion this would not be the case, noting:

Some have raised concerns over how much of an impact Sansar will have on SL’s landmass in 2017. I actually don’t think it will. While I anticipate the decline in land will continue (but hopefully at a slower rate than 2016), I simply don’t think Sansar will have any immediate impact on Second Life one way or the other. Not in its first year, at least.

Unsurprisingly, this has proven to be the case: region losses for the second half of 2017, following the opening of Sansar’s public Creator Beta, remained pretty much on a weekly par with the months prior to the Creator Beat opening. I expect this will continue to be the case through much – if not all – of 2018.

Private estate numbers downs and ups in 2017 – click for full size

For me, the question remains as to how the Lab might respond to the slow tier revenue decline. As unpalatable though it may be to some, the answer still isn’t any tier cut, for the same reasons I gave back in 2013. Simply put, from the Lab’s perspective – and contrary to popular misconceptions on the matter – what users might consider a “reasonable” tier reduction could actually be more immediately damaging to LL’s bottom line revenue generation, and bring with it no actual guarantee it would be overcome through any sustained demand for private land.

A better way – again from the Lab’s perspective – to relieve any pressure causing by reductions in revenue would be to reduce the costs involved in running ad maintaining Second Life. Doing so may not yield direct benefits to users in terms of tier reductions – but given the Lab’s sensitivity to the subject, they could over time provide the means for the Lab to reduce the tier paid by users. In the meantime, reducing costs allows the Lab to better leverage revenue into bankable profits. This is true, as well, for the work to move Second Life to the cloud – although hopefully, as the Lab has indicated, this might also eventually result in new land products / more flexible pricing. We just perhaps shouldn’t anticipate this happening in the near future.

Might we see Horizons expanded or a re-run of the buy-down offer in 2018? Possibly; although if either were to be tried, I suspect were there to be a move towards one or the other, it would likely be more to s further run of the buy-down offer, rather than an expansion of Horizons. That said, I actually anticipate that 2018 will see a further drop in region numbers, albeit one hopefully / most likely slower as then year unfolds than that of 2017. I doubt there will be any significant reversal unless something happens to cause a sustained growth in the overall numbers of users actively engaged in Second Life.

3 thoughts on “Looking at the Second Life 2017 year-end Grid Survey report”

Maybe the Lindens should expand projects like the Blake Sea. That place is very popular and land prices go through the roof. Residents there own rather small plots but have a huge public space that they can use. So the value that they get for their small plot is much better compared to isolated private estates.
Regarding the private estates, I know many people that would love to own land, but just cannot affort it. 100 USD for a sim would be a reasonable price. I would get a complete sim immediately. Land is needed to create good content, which then is the reason for people to log in to SL. Also owning their own land is a reason for people to log in to SL. Imagine Youtube would charge people a certain amount each month to upload videos. It would have a tiny userbase and not a lot of interesting content. SL is like Youtube. It’s both user created content. SL even has a big advantage through it’s economy. That is where Lindens should tax it’s users. Small property tax, require Premium for all serious use of the platform and rather high sales tax.

I remember way back in the day having a house that all together with decoration, was over 2800 prims.

Today I have a bigger, better, and much fuller house for 700 prims.

I wonder if that has something to do with landmass loss, also, I think people today spend a lot more money on clothes, shopping events are super popular and some people I know that make mesh clothes say they are selling more than ever, one even confessed to me even if it’s lower quality, as long as it’s in an even it sells.

Don’t forget LL takes a commission and the value of L$ is rock solid, I wouldn’t be concerned with profit loss I’d be willing to bet they are record high.

THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT May 26, 06:00 PDT - May 28, 06:00 PDTMay 23, 15:02 PDTScheduled - In observance of Memorial Day - Premium, Concierge, and Billing live chat and phone support will be closed on Sunday, May 26, 2018. Ticket submissions will remain open. All support channels will re-open Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 6 AM, PDT.

THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT May 25, 10:00 - 11:00 PDTMay 25, 08:26 PDTScheduled - Phone and chat support will be unavailable from 10:00 AM PDT to 11:00 AM PDT today, May 25th, 2019. Ticket submissions will still be available at this time.

Flickr Photos

Disclaimer

This blog is Creative Commons - Attribution - NonCommercial - Share Alike. You are free to share/repost/include material in this blog part or in whole in electronic and/or printed format, providing: full and correct attribution is given; doing so is not done for commercial purposes. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you will distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar licence to this one.

Statements made within comments submitted to this blog represent the views and opinions of those authoring them, and should not be taken as being indicative of this blog author's beliefs / opinion / view. Nor should the appearance of any comments following articles within this blog be taken as any endorsement of the opinion / views / beliefs stated within those comments on the part of the blog author.

Links from this blog to other websites or internet locations are offered as a convenience only. No warranty, express or implied, nor any legal liability is assumed for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or service offered at or through such linked sites or for any consequences arising from the use or access of such links.

Copyrights and trademarks belonging to these entities are duly acknowledged when referring products and platform operated by these entities. No attempt to infringe on any such copyright or trademarks are intended within the articles and reviews published in this blog.

This blog is neither affiliated with, nor sponsored by, any of the above organisations.